Home 
Opinion Letters Letters and Comments for May 3, 2010
Letters and Comments for May 3, 2010
|
Collingwood, Smith, Lathrop, Whitaker
Restricting MERA use
The Blue Mountain Back Country Riders and PPR Horse Boarding Clubs want equine supporters, riders and owners to understand the Mount Emily Recreation Area Advisory Committee is proposing a plan that will limit horse access and possibly set seasonal closures for horses and riders. The BMBCR Horse club donated $1,000 to the Singletrack Club to help convince the people of Union County to vote for the county to buy MERA for all users. For the past 36 years or longer Boise Cascade and Forest Capital have let all use MERA year-round on all trails. Now that we own MERA this committee is proposing it be sectioned off for special interest groups. The trail plan they presented to the public on April 19 shows 15.89 miles of trails for mountain bikes and 4.47 miles of trails for horses only. The horse trails have numerous bike crossings and intersections. There is not any actual horse-only trails. The roads will be multiple use year-round. BMBCR, Mavericks, PPR Horse Boarding, Columbia Plateau Heritage Alliance and Oregon Equestrian Trails met to define a unified statement on the non-motorized portion of MERA. All non-motorized users should have access to all roads and trails in all seasons. Mountain bike trails could be signed as such and we are convinced that most users would respect that. The MERA committee is meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at 1106 K Ave in the commissioners conference room. At the previous April 19 meeting, equestrian supporters collected 63 signatures supporting multiple use year-round and we were told this wasn’t enough. All Union County Equestrian supporters should protect their rights to keep the freedom they’ve always enjoyed to ride on public lands where and when they choose. Only you can protect your rights. I’m representing BMBCR, PPR Horseboarding and Oregon Equestrian Trails Club. Tim Collingwood La Grande
I attended the Union County Republicans monthly meeting and heard the presentations by the Republican candidates for Union County commissioner. Both John Lamoreau and Bill Rosholt gave a short speech about what they wanted to accomplish as a commissioner. The differences were glaring. John Lamoreau had at least seven issues that he wants to address to bring in new jobs and strengthen the local business that we already have. Bill Rosholt only told of how proud he was to be part of the Professional Golf Association and the awards he had received from them. It is pretty obvious that if you want someone who is creative and proactive about doing something to improve the present local economy, then John Lamoreau is the man to vote for. If you are satisfied with how things are and want them to continue this way, then vote for Bill Rosholt. Jeff Smith Elgin Lamoreau letter 1 of 10
Primary ballots will be coming soon, and most have the voters pamphlets in hand. I write to share some information that may be helpful in deciding who to vote for in the House District 57 race. In early February Colleen MacLeod came to Wallowa County to present her candidacy to a small group in a closed meeting. She explained that during the last legislative session a group of special interest persons met with Rep. Smith pressuring him for a no vote on a tax measure. Not getting the outcome they wanted, they told him that they would have his job. The group, according to MacLeod, then recruited her. As I recall, I was the only person to ask questions of Ms. MacLeod. I asked whether anyone in the state Republican Party had recruited her, she answered, they had not. I also asked for her stand on life issues. Her answer revealed that she is on both sides of the debate. At issue here, for me, is a person’s integrity. I wasn’t in favor of the vote Rep. Smith made. However, I do understand that on a bill that was going to pass without his vote, he obtained a tangible good for people in Eastern Oregon. I also understand that he is a man who will stand up to special interests and to his best ability, represent the folks in his district. For me, it’s a matter of looking at the big picture, not staring at a small piece. Smith has voted on literally thousands of bills and while we may not always agree with each vote, he has been a consistent, conservative voice. When big lobbyists pressured Rep. Smith he stood up to them. When they came calling on Ms. MacLeod, she said count me in. I will be voting for Greg Smith. Annette Lathrop Joseph Smith letter 4 of 10
As summer approaches, many of us look forward to buying fresh, healthy, locally grown fruits and vegetables at the La Grande Farmers Market. But what many people don’t know is that local growers and producers may be threatened by legislation pending in the U.S. Senate — S.510, The Food Safety and Modernization Act. Food contamination in recent years — whether in spinach, peppers or peanuts — occurred in industrialized food supply chains that span national and even international boundaries, not in local food systems. Food safety is a priority shared by all of us. S.510 improves traceability of food sources and establishes new hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for processing facilities. But the bill would place unnecessary costs and record-keeping requirements on Union County small-scale producers. For example, someone selling locally grown berries at the farmers market or at a farm stand could pay the same regulation fees as a large corporation such as Del Monte. These burdens could cripple small business. Food safety problems in the United States can be addressed without harming our local food system. Sen. John Tester of Montana has introduced an amendment that would exempt smaller operations so they can continue to provide fresh wholesome foods to a vibrant and growing local foods movement. Sen. Merkley and Sen. Wyden should support the Tester amendment to S.510 in order to protect locally produced foods here in Eastern Oregon. For additional information, contact Oregon Rural Action at 541-975-2411. Bill Whitaker La Grande Endorsement letter policy
• Letters are limited to no more than 300 words. • Endorsement letters will be limited to 10 per candidate, not necessarily determined on a first-come, first-served basis. Each candidate can submit one letter (not counted as part of the 10-letter limit). • Letters pertaining to the election must include an endorsement. Letters attacking one candidate without endorsing the other candidate will not be published. • Accusations made against candidates require documentation. • Paid advertisement space is also available for endorsements, but the same documentation standards will apply. Also, The Observer does not print endorsement letters from people who live out of Union and Wallowa counties.
|
